Our View: Background checks must include mental health data

Massachusetts can brag about its strong gun-control laws, but its failure to send mental health records to the FBI for background checks is a shame.

Comment

southcoasttoday.com

Writer

Posted Jan. 30, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Updated Jan 30, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Posted Jan. 30, 2013 at 12:01 AM
Updated Jan 30, 2013 at 6:14 PM

» Social News

Massachusetts can brag about its strong gun-control laws, but its failure to send mental health records to the FBI for background checks is a shame.

Opposition to corrective legislation proposed by Gov. Deval Patrick twice before his latest effort has been championed by the Gun Owners Action League, or GOAL, a Northboro-based group recognized as the official state association of the National Rifle Association.

GOAL's criticism of Patrick's past two attempts is worth some consideration, concerned as it is that the language in previous proposals was too loose regarding which records were pertinent to the process. GOAL's executive director was quoted this week in the Boston Globe saying the group is completely in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill, but wasn't satisfied on whether data on voluntary and involuntary commitments should be treated the same.

GOAL's objections — unless they are simply political stall tactics — should be mollified by Patrick's latest version, filed Jan. 16, which was introduced with a letter that includes this:

"It brings Massachusetts into compliance with the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, a federal law passed in the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shooting tragedy. It will require that the courts transmit all required mental health adjudications and orders to the state's criminal justice information system to be provided to the Attorney General of the United States for the purpose of firearms licensing only. The legislation also creates a federally mandated relief from disabilities program, which allows individuals who have mental health disqualifications to once again become eligible for gun ownership by showing that they are not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety."

Interestingly, criticism has also been expressed by the American Civil Liberties Union over the threat to the privacy and rights of the mentally ill, though the proposed law would allow the mental health data to be used exclusively in the performance of background checks.

In the immediate aftermath of the heartbreaking massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., part of the discussion of solutions included the impact of bullying and violent video games, movies and music. Most of the talk, however, rightly focused on our gun laws and on the way we deal with mental illness in the U.S.

We do not believe the concerns of GOAL and the ACLU trump the critical necessity of changing how we deal with the matter. Nor do we consider a thoughtful, reasonable Legislature to be incapable of using the political process to address what deficiencies might exist in the proposed law.

The mentally ill must be protected, as they are so much more likely to be victimized themselves as to be the instruments of mass murder. But the safety of all Americans — and of students most especially — demands that background checks be universal, that access to assault weapons be carefully restricted, and that those who are unfit to be in possession of any gun be prevented from acquiring them.

We recognize the importance of tackling this issue from many angles, particularly on our national attitude regarding personal violence as a solution to conflicts, but the Legislature has a golden opportunity before it to improve our official approach to gun violence, gun ownership and mental health. It must not let this opportunity slip by again.